Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. (2). The petitioner, which is a registered society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, was allotted a piece of land by the Municipal Board, Banswara, on 1.2.86. Patta Ex.1 with respect to this land was issued on 3.1.88. Adjoining to the land which was allotted to the petitioner-appellant, there was a vacant plot of land. The Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj, on 30.6.84, move an application before the Municipal Board, Banswara, for the allotment of some suitable land for the construction of the Officer for the Pensioners Samaj. In that application some plots were suggested for the allotment to the Pensioners Samaj. The Municipal board, Banswara, by its order dated 10.2.94 (Annexure 9) made the allotment of the part of the adjoining vacant land measuring 18x30 to the Pensioners Samaj. Against this allotment of land made in favour of the Pensioners Samaj, the petitioner- appellant made a representation before the Collector, Banswara, and the Collector, on the representation of the petitioner- appellant, passed an order cancelling the allotment made in favour or the Pensioners Samaj. When the Pensioners Samaj came to know of this fact, they approached the Collector and made the representation Annexure 15. On the representation of the Pensioners Samaj, the Collector, on 10.10.94, in supersession of his earlier order dated 28.4.94, directed the Administrator, Municipal Board, Banswara, to hand-over the possession of the plot in question to the Pensioners Samaj. (3). The appellant-petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the allotment of the land made in favour of the Pensioners Samaj as well as the order passed by the Collector, Banswara. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 17.2.95, dimissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and held that ``in this case neither there is any breach of statutory provision nor any constitutional provisions. The learned Single Judge further held that ``except making this bare averment there is no material on record to substantiate the said contention that any assurance was given by the Municipal Board while allotting the land to it in 1986 that the deisputed land will, also, be allotted to him subsequently. It is against this judgment that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. (4). It is against this judgment that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. (4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allotment has been made in favour of the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Pensioners Samaj, without considering the representation of the appellant-petitioner for the allotment of this land or the adjoining land as it has a preferential right over this land and without giving any opportunity to the appellant, the impugned allotment order has been passed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passedby the learned Single Judge and further submitted that the land belongs to the Municipal Board, Banswara, and there was no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before making the allotment of the land in favour of the Pensioners Samaj and the appellant has no vested right or preferential right over the land in question. It has, also, been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Pensioners Samaj that they applied for the allotment of the land in the year 1984 and after a lapse of about ten years they have been able to get this land alloted in their favour and in between the land allotted to the Pensioners Samaj and the land of the appellant, there is a 20 wide open place. (5). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (6). The land which was allotted to the appellant-petitioner on 1.2.86, was allotted for construction of the Office. Nothing has been placed on record to show : whether any permission was granted by the Municipal Board to the appellant-petitioner for the construction of the godown etc. and further more, there is a 20 wide open place between the land of the appellant-petitioner and the land allotted to the respondent No.4. The petitioner- appellant has no preferential right so far as the land in question is concerned. The land belongs to the Municipal Board, Banswara and the allotment made in favour of the Pensioners Samaj cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. Neither there is a violation of any rule nor is there a breach of any statutory provision. The land belongs to the Municipal Board, Banswara and the allotment made in favour of the Pensioners Samaj cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. Neither there is a violation of any rule nor is there a breach of any statutory provision. As the petitioner has got neither any preferential right nor any other right in its favour, therefore, before making the allotment of the land in favour of the respondent No.4, there was no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of any force. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference. (7). In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.